Medberry v. Crosby, No. 02-11072.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Black |
| Citation | 351 F.3d 1049 |
| Parties | Daniel Clark MEDBERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James CROSBY, Charlie Crist, Florida Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. Daniel C. Medberry, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James Crosby, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Charlie Crist, Florida Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 02-15808.,No. 02-11072. |
| Decision Date | 25 November 2003 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
449 practice notes
-
U.S. v. Lopez, No. 07-35389.
...v. Omoski, 435 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir.2006); Reeves v. Little, 120 F.3d 1136, 1138-39 (10th Cir.1997) (per curiam); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th 9. Cooper v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (order), involved a capital petitioner's request to file a se......
-
Samak v. Warden, No. 13–12161
...with the procedural requirements of section 2254. See, e.g., Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 787 (11th Cir.2004); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1058–62 (11th Cir.2003). Unlike these state prisoners who challenge their “custody,” a motion under section 2255 is the exclusive mechanism fo......
-
Williams v. Alabama, Civil Action Number 1:07-cv-1276-KOB-TMP
...his argument as to cumulative effect." Because § 2241 and § 2254 writs of habeas corpus provide the same remedy, see Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1032 (2004); Peoples v. Chatman, 393 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2004), this reasoning applies with equal ......
-
White v. Lambert, No. 02-35550.
...denied, 531 U.S. 1029, 121 S.Ct. 606, 148 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000); Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir.2001); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1058-62 (11th Cir.2003). But see Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869-71 (10th Cir.2000) (holding that § 2241 was the proper statute to cha......
Request a trial to view additional results
448 cases
-
U.S. v. Lopez, No. 07-35389.
...v. Omoski, 435 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir.2006); Reeves v. Little, 120 F.3d 1136, 1138-39 (10th Cir.1997) (per curiam); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th 9. Cooper v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (order), involved a capital petitioner's request to file a se......
-
Samak v. Warden, No. 13–12161
...with the procedural requirements of section 2254. See, e.g., Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 787 (11th Cir.2004); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1058–62 (11th Cir.2003). Unlike these state prisoners who challenge their “custody,” a motion under section 2255 is the exclusive mechanism fo......
-
Williams v. Alabama, Civil Action Number 1:07-cv-1276-KOB-TMP
...his argument as to cumulative effect." Because § 2241 and § 2254 writs of habeas corpus provide the same remedy, see Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1032 (2004); Peoples v. Chatman, 393 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2004), this reasoning applies with equal ......
-
White v. Lambert, No. 02-35550.
...denied, 531 U.S. 1029, 121 S.Ct. 606, 148 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000); Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir.2001); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1058-62 (11th Cir.2003). But see Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869-71 (10th Cir.2000) (holding that § 2241 was the proper statute to cha......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
EQUITABLE POWER AFTER AEDPA--LESSONS FROM THE PANDEMIC.
...25, 1948, ch. 646, [section] 2241, 62 Stat. 869, 964-65 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. [section] 2241); see, e.g., Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1056-57 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating that the recodification left the basic grant of authority to issue writs of habeas corpus unchanged in [......